A blog about guns, politics, freedom, entertainment, and generally anything and everything else, written by a well-armed veteran with an extensive vocabulary, the ability to make up inventive invective, a bad attitude and a high IQ

To be fair, the New York Times wasn’t the only media outlet to have published the stolen State Department documents irresponsibly released by the ever-so-slimy Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, who has apparently made it his mission in life to embarrass the United States as much as possible. To continue being fair, the New York Times did offer the administration a first look at what it intended to publish and the documents it had obtained.

However, the hypocritical, uneven, and biased attitude displayed by the Times when publishing this particular tranche of leaked proprietary information vice the supercilious, pretentious and self-aggrandizing attitude with which it haughtily refused to publish the leaked emails from East Anglia University, which showed efforts by certain scientists in the climate research community to hide information that didn’t fit their mission to destroy capitalism by wielding a green bat, is telling.

Not that we didn’t already know that the Times is anything but objective and leans heavily left. Anyone who hasn’t been living under a rock for the past several years could observe the political leanings of those in charge. This is no revelation. I’m simply pointing out the specific hypocrisy with which the Times addressed both situations.

In a NYT opinion, Andrew Rivkin disdainfully stated that he would not be publishing the Climategate documents, because *GASP!* they were illegally obtained, and the people who wrote them had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I have a story in The Times on the incident and its repercussions, which continue to unfold. But there’s much more to explore, of course (including several references to me). The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here. But a quick sift of skeptics’ Web sites will point anyone to plenty of sources.

Meanwhile, in an explanation to its readers as to why the Times would choose to publish classified State Department information (because we can, and we think you’ll read us more often if we do), the editors explained that, well… it’s the public’s right to know, dammit! And really – why not! These documents would be made public no matter what the Times decided to do, and therefore, why not go ahead and publish them anyway, making it easier for any Tom, Dick or Terrorist to read and use to their advantage.

Of course, most of these documents will be made public regardless of what The Times decides. WikiLeaks has shared the entire archive of secret cables with at least four European publications, has promised country-specific documents to many other news outlets, and has said it plans to ultimately post its trove online. For The Times to ignore this material would be to deny its own readers the careful reporting and thoughtful analysis they expect when this kind of information becomes public.

But the more important reason to publish these articles is that the cables tell the unvarnished story of how the government makes its biggest decisions, the decisions that cost the country most heavily in lives and money. They shed light on the motivations — and, in some cases, duplicity — of allies on the receiving end of American courtship and foreign aid. They illuminate the diplomacy surrounding two current wars and several countries, like Pakistan and Yemen, where American military involvement is growing. As daunting as it is to publish such material over official objections, it would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name.

Really?

The Times wouldn’t publish the Climategate emails, because they were stolen, and they were ostensibly private communications between scientists (who were ostensibly plotting to use fraud to push a political agenda), but communications between State Department employees, discussing allies and adversaries apparently don’t deserve the same type of respect.

The Times wouldn’t publish the Climategate emails, because they were illegally obtained – and we know the Times is well above that kind of thievery! (Please note sarcasm here, for those who are challenged). I guess classified reports stolen by a disgruntled Army PFC and illegally passed on to an ethically-challenged website owner, who is dedicated to bringing down the US, isn’t considered theft, right?

In an update to his original arrogant refusal to print the Climategate documents, Rivkin attempts to weasel out of his own words by claiming that he eventually changed his mind about the scientists’ expectation of privacy, and that while the Times was apparently too good and moral to publish the stolen emails, he did provide a link to others who did.

First, while I initially did not publish the contents of the climate files and e-mails (at the request of Times lawyers, considering the uncertain provenance and authenticity of the materials at the time), I did (from the start) provide links to the caches of material set up elsewhere on the Web.

Second, in the rush on the day the files were distributed across the Web, I called them “private” when, in fact, I should have said their senders had presumed they were private. As I’ve said off and on since then, given that much of the research discussed in the exchanges was done using taxpayers’ money, any expectation of privacy wasn’t justified.]

I’m fairly sure that State Department employees also presumed their communications were private – especially the ones that were… oh, I don’t know… CLASSIFIED! And I would submit to you that government officials discussing matters of national security among themselves have more of a right to expect privacy than scientists using government money to perpetuate political fraud!

And even though the Times claims it took care to ensure that it didn’t publish information that would compromise national security, I would submit that their editors and reporters aren’t educated or versed in intelligence enough to know what would and would not compromise national security. Our enemies, on the other hand, well trained in exploitation would and do. Would communications between government officials (presumed to be private) discussing our allies and critical of their military actions, achievements, etc. compromise national security? Not to the NYT. They’re merely snarky emails about foreign government officials that would be interesting to the public. Would they compromise relationships? Surely. Would they compromise liaisons with sources? Yep. Would it compromise our ability to collect information? Yep. Does the NYT care? Apparently not.

Those expecting my usual level of vitriol in this will be disappointed. I’ve already stated my opinion on Assange and his pathetic mission to discredit our nation. I don’t need to go there again. I’ve also numerous times stated my views on the media and its responsibility to not just its readers but to its nation as a whole. Just because you have the information and technically have the right to disseminate it, doesn’t mean you should. The Times and other media outlets – out of a sense of decency – should have refrained, even though others did not. But I can’t dictate their sense of morality any more than anyone else.

I just find it sad that a disgruntled Army Private would consciously and intentionally compromise the nation he swore under oath to protect and defend, and that the very media outlets that enjoy the freedoms this nation offe
rs by its founding principles use those principles to compromise said nation.

I also find it loathsome that some civil libertarian types are cheering this latest disclosure. Folks, I’m as libertarian as they come, but I’m also realistic enough to understand the need for national security and the reality of the world in which we live, having been deployed and having served in the military for nearly a decade. While I’m not thrilled with our internationalist bent, our activities around the world that force us to stick our noses in affairs that shouldn’t be our purview and the consequent need to utilize massive amounts of resources to uphold these missions, fact of the matter is that is the current policy, and releasing classified information that compromises our standing in the world and our relationships with our allies won’t change said policy.

All it will do is facilitate the ultimate creation of yet another bureaucracy that expends time and resources dealing with these leaks – tech people whose mission it will be to build yet more cumbersome and expensive infrastructure to protect from future leaks, which will likely be compromised in another way by another enterprising traitor, analysts to spend days, weeks and months examining leaked information and writing reports on its impacts, overtime paid, because this mission is critical… you get the picture. What it won’t do is force the government to be more open, but will force many of us who do have a legitimate mission here to divert our attention to the latest irresponsible leak of information. Is that what you civil libertarians want?

No, I’m sure it isn’t. What they do want is to stick it to “da man.” Ultimately, this isn’t about government accountability, but rather a gloating fist in the air that someone has gotten away with embarrassing the establishment. Assange and those who support him are the dirty hippies of the 21st century – nothing more, nothing less.

And Manning, the PFC who handed classified information over to WikiLeaks – he’s simply a traitor who violated his oath and should be treated as such.

Share this:

Like this:

Seriously. Rob and I were walking through Pentagon Row yesterday, when we realized that there’s been no Thanksgiving this year. The Christmas junk was already on display in most stores at Halloween, and we’re convinced now that Consumeristmas has supplanted Thanksgiving, Halloween is next.

So yeah, society is currently gorging on turkey, stuffing and every other kind of food imaginable. I’m not, but that’s OK. I’ll do so this weekend, when I get my kids back and when my parents come to visit. I’m having a bit of a hard time, because for the first time ever, the Redhead and Teeny aren’t with me on Thanksgiving Day. They’re with their dad. That’s just how things worked out this year. He works a revolving schedule, so the kids alternate between his house and mine. It just happened to be his turn this Thanksgiving, and I’m working through some anger issues, because it’s the first Thanksgiving ever that I have spent completely alone.

It’s weird.

I usually enjoy my “me” time. I don’t get a whole lot of it. I also don’t need a special day to be thankful for everything I have. I’m thankful every day. I never put stock in holidays. They generally leave me a ball of stress. But not having the ginger monkey and his sister this Thanksgiving Day just doesn’t feel right.

They’re mine, ya know?

I’m not particularly depressed. More like angry. Not sure why. Angry at myself, mostly, because I don’t need a special day to be close to my kids. We’re close as it is. And for all it’s worth, I was actually looking forward to being by myself today – to having some time to read, blog, nap, etc. Hell, I don’t even like turkey, all that much. I prefer ham, which I’m going to have this weekend with the family. Still, though. Hot Pockets on Thanksgiving seems wrong somehow. So do Rahmen noodles. And Cheez-Its.

In any case, it’s not that I’m sad. I have a wonderful career that I enjoy. I have great kids, who may drive me crazy at times, but are still pretty damn terrific. I have a cool dog, two crazy cats who think they’re dogs, and a hedgehog who rules the house. I have awesome friends. And I’m thankful for all that and more. So I have no reason to be sad. I’m just weirded out by the fact that I’m weirded out.

Like this:

I have so many completely appalled thoughts running through my head today, that the only way to really put them in order is to reflect randomly and hope it all falls into place like a jigsaw puzzle created by a Muppet on Ecstasy.

If Jugears-in-Chief only has one ball, does the First Clydesdale get to keep the other?

Just how much more douchenozzely can the American Family Association get? These fuckers are the Phelching Phred Phelpses in drag! The same fucktards who lamented the “feminization” of the Medal of Honor a few days ago after SSG Giunta was honored for his heroism, who then tried to weasel out of taking responsibility for their repugnant words, again and again , are now calling for the boycott of Dicks. Not penises. Dicks. Sporting goods. Because apparently decorating trees, giving gifts and hanging ornaments is only reserved for those who endlessly hump the New Testament. Assholes.

Oh, and Dr. Mary Edwards Walker was the only (so far) female recipient of the Medal of Honor. She could have probably kicked the ass of every last member of the American Family Association.

I can too.

TSA apparently confiscated a Gerber tool and a pair of nail clippers from two members of an armed National Guard Unit. They had all sorts of scary guns, but according to the TSA assclown, it’s the nail clippers that posed a threat!

TSA Guy: You’re not suppose to have them.

Soldier: Why?

TSA Guy: They can be used as a weapon.

Soldier: [touches butt stock of the rifle] But this actually is a weapon. And I’m allowed to take it on.

TSA Guy: Yeah but you can’t use it to take over the plane. You don’t have bullets.

Soldier: And I can take over the plane with nail clippers?

TSA Guy: [awkward silence]

I’d like to write a sitcom and submit it to Hollyweird about the TSA and the dipshits that are really just following orders by groping toddlers, confiscating nail clippers from a Soldier armed with an M4, and manually stimulating grandmas in wheelchairs. But at the end of every episode, the TSA goons get their teeth kicked in by fed-up passengers. Curtain!

Do you think God looks at Phelps and the assnuggets at American Family Association and uses the “C” word?

I really wanted to use the word “penis” in a post. It’s been a while.

I must be really immature, because I’m still giggling at American Family Association boycotting Dicks. How is it they expect to perpetuate said family?

I’m going to my first Navy football game this weekend.

I’m still trying to decide whether I’m going to allow my naked goodies to be ogled by TSA goons this May when I take my vacation, or whether I’ll let TSA goons who have likely been hired from a job fair at the nearest halfway house, grope my dressed goodies instead. Tough choice.

Lasagna.

I nearly glued myself to my Staff Director’s floor yesterday – with Crazy Glue. I can’t decide if that would have been funny.

Like this:

On the heels of yesterday’s hilarious video in which two dogs explain exactly what the Fed is doing with our money, I submit this to you. I’ll admit I didn’t realize that former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff had a very significant economic interest in the sale of airport scanners – yes, the very same scanners that allow TSA goons to ogle your naked image, unless you submit to them “touching your junk” instead. But apparently, much like the BENBERNANKE (the “e” is silent), the WILLIAMDUDLEY and other members of the banking cabal who have undeniable ties to the GOLDMANSACHS, Chertoff has a teeeeeeeny, tiiiiiiiiny conflict of interest in the Strip Scanner.

Since the attempted bombing of a US airliner on Christmas Day, former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff has given dozens of media interviews touting the need for the federal government to buy more full-body scanners for airports.What he has made little mention of is that the Chertoff Group, his security consulting agency, includes a client that manufactures the machines. Chertoff disclosed the relationship on a CNN program Wednesday, in response to a question.

An airport passengers’ rights group on Thursday criticized Chertoff’s use of his former government credentials to advocate for a product that benefits his clients.

Ooooops! A former head of Homeland Security, who ostensibly has security “cred” and the proper authority to scare the living shit out of Americans with his first-hand expertise on the terrorist threat recommends full body scanners which are coincidentally manufactured by a client of his consulting firm?

As one dog said to another in the video below, (robotic voice) “You. have. got. to. be. shitting. me.” (/robotic voice)

And by the way, if you’re wondering where some of that stimulus cash has gone…

Well, some of it has gone indirectly into the pockets of Michael Chertoff and the Chertoff Group.

In the summer, TSA purchased 150 more machines from Rapiscan with $25 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. Rapiscan was the only company that qualified for the contract because it had developed technology that performs the screening using a less-graphic body imaging system, which is also less controversial. (Since then, another company, L-3 Communications, has qualified for future contracts, but no new contracts have been awarded.)

Meanwhile, the barely literate, semi-simian TSA goons will continue to either ogle your naked goodies inside the scan, or finger your wheelchair-bound grandma just in case she represents a threat. And I’m sure they will eventually bow to CAIR demands that Muslim women only be submitted to a pat down of their heads and not anywhere else. Because they couldn’t possibly hide an explosive in the hijab, right? And an invasive groping by TSA goons will likely offend their delicate Muslim sensibilities, so we can’t have THAT!

Get this straight, folks. Muslims are the ones trying to kill us, but Muslims are the ones who will likely get an exemption from the special groping the rest of us will receive courtesy of the TSA.

Excellent!!

Meanwhile, a recent CBS poll revealed that the majority of Americans (81 percent) have no problem with their goodies being on full display at the airport through the Chertoff scanner. They think they’ll be safer. However, most of them oppose profiling – either ethnic or racial – as a means of deterring terrorists. Therefore, it’s perfectly OK to force white grandmothers to spread their cheeks for TSA inspections, but leave the goat-smelling, swarthy Middle Eastern blokes alone.

Once again, I submit that the sheeple have gotten exactly what they deserve – both in elected office and at the airport.

Me? I’ll be taking my car places as much as possible. While I realize that it’s nearly impossible to avoid flying at times, I’ll be taking extra special effort to ensure I don’t step foot into an airport that has one of those odious things. In the meantime, I’ll need to decide whether I prefer fully clothed groping to naked ogling.

My favorite line out of the bunch: “That feels familiar. Do you go to the glory hole at Chester Street?”

I would add that allowing your panties to soak in some not-so-fresh tuna fish for a few days before putting them on will give the TSA Grope Brigade an extra whiff of sumthin’ sumthin’ if they choose to get close to your junk.

Share this:

Like this:

Went to Rachel’s blog today for my dose of sanity. Found the best video to date explaining the concept of “quantitative easing.” Now, I work in the field of economics, and I couldn’t simplify the concept of what the Fed is doing to your earnings, to our economy and to the global economy in general without a whole lot of obscenity, invective, and likely threats of bodily harm to THE BENBERNANKE (watch the video – it’ll make it clear). But this video explains it well – with only a minimal amount of cursing.

Like this:

Maybe you heard, and maybe you haven’t, but I’m going to tell you the tale with a happy ending anyway. It’s a happy ending that brought tears to my eyes, and emphasized once again how real Americans can stand up together to abject shitbaggery and give a resounding middle finger to those who choose to support policies that attempt to force us to be less than what we are – Americans.

A few days ago, a 13 year old boy, who had been riding his bike to school adorned with the American flag to honor his American military veterans, had been told to take it down, because some students were complaining.

Yeah, get this. Students in an AMERICAN school funded by AMERICAN taxpayers complained about a little boy flying an AMERICAN flag. And AMERICAN school administrators, ostensibly out of fear for this kid’s safety, decided to ban him from having said flag on his bike.

After being contacted by FOX40 Friday morning, Denair’s Superintendent says Cody will be allowed to keep the flag on his bike. He told FOX40 he and the school are patriotic, but their main priority is keeping students safe; the school will focus on the students who are causing uprisings. Riding a bike is still not allowed on school campus, but when Cody rides his bike to school he can now fly the flag.

So… flying the AMERICAN flag in AMERICA now could cause racial tensions? Gee, I wonder what race those causing the tensions could possibly be? Hmmmmmm?

Care to take a guess?

So Cody will be “allowed,” to keep his flag on his bike, and he had some friends accompanying him to school. Just in case there are any… ahem… “racial tensions” on campus.

Rob

Hi, I'm Rob. I used to blog at Northern Virginia Conservative, but Nicki got way more hits anyhow, so I moved over here. My language is somewhat less colorful than hers, but I also get pretty passionate.

I'm the Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia, and work at a political fundraising firm on the Hill during the day.